1 2025:CGHC:52041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5508 of 2025 1 - Ramashankar Yadav S/o Late Mahavir Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Sangita Yadav W/o Ramashankar Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Alok Gupta S/o Late Nandlal Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Arvind Gupta S/o Late Nandlal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Shravan Prajapati S/o Sitaram Prajapati Aged About 52 Years R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. VK Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 direct the respondent No.3 to decide the application filed by the petitioners under Section 131 of the Code, 1959 vide its 20240327/B00014/2023-24 Case No. being parties "Ramashankar Yadav and another Vs. Alok Gupta and others". 10.3 Grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioners, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned State Counsel contended that petitioners have not filed the order-sheets of the Court of concerned Tahsildar, therefore, this petition is defective one. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to revive the same, if cause of action arises in future. 4. In view of above, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-